Re: Reasons for the removal of "editor" virtual package
lists@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) writes:
> > The problems with the proposed new solution:
> > How does a package which depends on having an editor know which
> > editor to use?
>
> Can we requie all editor packages to provide editor and provide a
> /bin/editor update-alternative?
Quite possibly. But can you give me a good answer to the first of my
two posers:
> > 1. Why fixing packages that depend on an editor to print a suitable message
> > is not a good idea, or is not a sufficient solution to the problem.
It seems to me that any package that fails mysteriously if the EDITOR
variable is set wrongly, or an editor it expects to find does not exist,
needs to be fixed. If we fix them, why is this not a sufficient solution to
the problem? Why do we need to introduce any other mechanism?
If it is a sufficient solution, and fixing them is desirable, then why not
do it this way, rather than using another solution? If we use another
solution, it would tend to remove some of the incentive to make packages
more friendly to missing/wrong/local editor problems.
Warwick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Harvey email: warwick@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Department of Computer Science phone: +61-3-9344-9171
University of Melbourne fax: +61-3-9348-1184
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 web: http://www.cs.mu.OZ.AU/~warwick
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: